Wow, I thought it was just my bad luck that I had installed some CFL
bulbs that croaked long before their advertised lifespan and spewed
out RFI as they died. It was helpful to learn from this reflector
that others have had the same experience. That is why I subscribe to this list.
But..........It doesn't take a Mensa IQ to see that this discussion
has now metastasized into a topic that has nuttin' (nada, zilch,
zippo) to do wid RFI from CFLs. The operative word HERE is RFI. If
it ain't RFI, then it don't belong here. This ain't your morning
coffee klatch where any topic is fair game. Is that so hard to
comprehend? My sixth grade granddaughter is bright enough to see
that. SHEESH.
So, little boys, zip your trousers and take your pissing match to a
different reflector or message board. You are turning my inbox yellow.
If you just simply cannot resist flexing your mental muscles and want
to joust with some posters on this reflector regarding
enviro-political issues rather than RFI issues, then PLEEEEZE reply
directly to the poster rather than the whole list.
K9DU
At 10:32 AM 10/20/2007, Pete Smith wrote:
>Please, enough! I've worn the paint off my delete key.
>
>73, Pete N4ZR
>
>At 11:21 AM 10/20/2007, someone wrote:
> >To your point, I fear that you have failed to read the large body of
> >SCIENTIFIC study that refutes the claim of human activity affecting the
> >climate system of the earth.
> >
> >SCIENTIFIC study has demonstrated that the earth has undergone many warming
> >and cooling cycles during its millions of years of history. Unless you have
> >knowledge of an experimental study that a vast body of scientists are
> >unaware of proving the current warming cycle is the result of human
> >activity, I fear you view of the world falls under proposition 2 of your
> >list.
> >
> >More to the point, temperature records show the northern hemisphere was
> >warmer in the 1930's than it is today and the southern hemisphere has
> >changed little if any in the last 100 years.
> >
> >I am certain the earth would be better off if we would reduce emissions of
> >all kinds, but as the population of the earth grows it's not likely to
> >happen.
> >
> >The more this issue becomes a political issue, the less likely there will a
> >satisfactory solution. History has shown that politicians adopt short term
> >fixes in response to the loudest pressure. This type of fix invariable turn
> >out to be a disaster in the long run. Just watch as the latest political
> >fix to a natural resource problem, ethanol for petroleum plays out. farmers
> >all over the world, not being stupid, have jumped on the bandwagon and are
> >growing corn and other crops capable of being converted into ethanol on any
> >piece of unused or worn out land available. The fact that they have
> >increased the rate of destruction of jungle land in Brazil or are pouring
> >vast amounts of petroleum based fertilizer on infertile land in the US and
> >are using vast amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to farm this land is
> >conveniently ignored.
> >
> >All of this to produce a fuel that is more harmful to the atmosphere than is
> >gasoline. The production of NOX is increased with ethanol. NOX is more
> >harmful than CO2
> >
> >Where's the ecology in that?
> >
> >David
> >KC2JD/4
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com]On
> > > Behalf Of Jim Brown
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 10:27 AM
> > > To: RFI Reflector
> > > Subject: [RFI] Global Warming and Ecology
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:13:47 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
> > >
> > > >There is no UNDISPUTED evidence that global warming is the result
> > > >of human activities.
> > >
> > > Those doing the disputing don't have science on their side. I see
> > > those doing the disputing as coming from one or more of the
> > > following places:
> > >
> > > May I remind those here of the scientific method -- study what has
> > > already been proven and understood, set up experiments to prove
> > > what is not yet known or proven. Most of us here have done that
> > > for circuit theory, electronics, and radio, but not many of us
> > > have done so in the discipline of the ecology of our planet.
> > >
> > > The fact that WE have not done so does not mean that others have
> > > not done so.
> > >
> > > 1) "I haven't done the science to prove it, nor have I studied the
> > > science that has been done, so it isn't real."
> > >
> > > 2) "It violates my political views of how the world should be
> > > run."
> > >
> > > 3) "Science is a matter of opinion."
> > >
> > > If you get around the world much (to places where you see the
> > > degradation of the environment), and if you read REAL newspapers,
> > > and if you listen to REAL broadcast news, it is clear beyond any
> > > reasonable doubt that massive damage has already been done to our
> > > planet. The well documented receding of the polar ice caps are
> > > only the most recent examples. You didn't hear about that? That's
> > > YOUR fault, not a guy named Gore.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Jim Brown K9YC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RFI mailing list
> > > RFI@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >RFI mailing list
> >RFI@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|